I have been an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama’s presidential prospects since the beginning, and his actions since the election have generally acted to reinforce my optimism regarding his coming presidency.  Having said this, however, there are a few issues where I believe he is on the wrong side. 

One of these is the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which is promoted by organized labor.  EFCA would replace the current system, where the employees of a given group vote by secret ballot on whether or not to affiliate with a union.  If I understand it correctly, under the current system, the election is required once the union organizers get the signatures from 30% of the employees.  Those employees are not necessarily requesting to be part of the union, but in many cases are initially just exploring the possibility.  They are looking to have an election, but without committing in advance on how they will vote.  It seems to me that the present system works pretty well.  With the decision being made by secret ballot, workers can choose their preference without pressure or retribution either from the union itself, the co-workers, or the employer.  This is the real employee free choice. 

In contrast, EFCA would require an employer to recognize a union – without an election – once organizers collect signed cards from a majority of employees.  Some of these employees might be interested in considering the possibility, but EFCA would effectively remove that step in the process.  It is not hard to imagine the pressure or intimidation that a worker could feel when forced to publicly declare his or her decision. 

In a way, EFCA is like the line-item veto that most presidents and some pundits advocate.  It might have good effects some of the time, but the advocates of both measures tend to ignore the negative effects.  The main effect will be to strengthen the hand of the unions (in the case of EFCA) or the president (in the case of the line-item veto).  While in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama actually advocated EFCA because it would supposedly protect workers from intimidation by their employers.  Mr. President-Elect, that does not make any sense.  Current law provides protections for workers from retribution by employers for attempting to unionize.  In any case, one of the most valuable rights a worker has right now is the right to a secret ballot, and EFCA would take that right away.   Shouldn’t a worker also be protected from intimidation on the part of the co-workers and the unions?

This issue has nothing to do with the historical importance of unions.  The rise of the unions a few generations ago led to raising the living standards for millions of workers.  I don’t think there is a serious dispute that raising those previously appalling working conditions and living standards was a good thing.  There also cannot be much doubt that it was the rise of the unions that made those positive changes possible.  Still, it does not logically follow that, because the unions helped many workers in the past, strengthening the position of the unions in the 21st Century will be good for workers going forward. 

I believe that Barack Obama has shown excellent judgment on many issues, and in his approach to problem solving.  It appears to me that he has chosen an excellent cabinet and other top advisors, and he will make sure that he is at least aware of the arguments that run contrary to his initial policy inclinations.  I hope that EFCA will be one of the issues where he reconsiders his position.